By the way, Wisconsin at 16? What even caused them to fall so low? When I saw their ranking next to them on the ticker it made me think that they had lost a third time and I had somehow missed it or forgotten it. If I could hand-pick a team that I thought could give LSU a run for their money in the title game, Wisconsin would actually be on the short list. I'd give them a better chance at it than most of the top 10.

lsu and alabama are the two best teams by far, on a neutral field it could be a pick em but since its in the superdome lsu will probably be giving a point. I think oklahoma state and wisconsin are behind them, then from 5-10 its some order of stanford/oregon/oklahoma/boise/houston/arkansas.

if alabama wins a close game vs lsu though i still dont see how you can justify voting them #1 since lsu had the clearly superior season and won on the road. it completely undermines the bcs argument that the regular season is super duper important.

o/u # years until the BCS is abolished?

Also, it'd be sick if Saban/Miles had somewhat fixed the bama/LSU game to be so close so that their respective teams would have this exact shot. Disregard that last sentence lollll winebrain + watching old marathons of "24" have me in conspiracy mode.

So thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat's what you call it....

wouldn't be a whole lot different than the pats and giants a few years back. iirc the giants played them super close in the last or 2nd to last game of the season. pats not only had a superior season than the giants but also like everyone else ever. You gotta win the final. my point is I wouldn't have a problem with calling bama better if that happened; or at least I wouldn't call them undeserving.

also the 3rd best team would likely get demolished. so bama is not only number 2 on paper but also in the powerrankings imo. like you said itll only be ~1 pt.

the difference imo is that everyone in the nfl knows that its super bowl or bust, you play the regular season to get to the playoffs and then what you did before doesnt matter. the bcs cartel tries to convince us that the college regular season is so extremely important when in actuality they remove all meaning except for two teams.

i think the best and simplest solution is to take the 6 highest ranked conference champions (using the bcs rankings is fine) plus the two highest ranked other teams as at larges. seed them 1 to 8 in order of ranking. first round games are played at the higher seed, then the semifinals and finals at the current bcs sites. the other bcs site gets to pick any two teams that didnt make the playoffs. obviously this is on some type of rotation. then let the rest of the bowls do their thing.

Also there's 120 NCAA teams... That makes a massive diff. The margin of worst->best is SO much greater in college football than in the NFL.

What?

I didn't want a rematch a few weeks ago, but at this point, it is absolutely clear that there should be a rematch and clearly these are the two best teams in the country.



This is also absurd. Whoever wins the title game is the best team in the country, period. Voting who should be number one is antiquated because of an actual title game where the top 2 teams play. The less BCS involvement, the better.

1. Notre Dame lost

2. Baylor won

with that, I am satisfied.

itt regs continue in boston/area for similar things, and most people realize that UGA is at least semi legit in CFB. SEC E CHAMPS NUKKA!

*fyp

You're really comfortable with next week's situation where Alabama sits at home as a reward for losing to LSU and LSU has to fade another opponent as punishment for beating Alabama?

although that's the current situation you're ignoring the fact that LSU did benefit greatly from beating alabama and alabama did suffer for losing to LSU.

if you told the two teams prior to their first game: "hey, the winner is basically a lock to go to the NCG and the loser can only make it if ok st., stanford, oregon, boise st. and oklahoma lose" do you think the loser would be happy?

i understand your frustrations with the system but we still have to play by the rules, which require the #1 and #2 team to play in the NCG. its impossible to argue that alabama isn't the #2 team, so they have to go.

...except that Alabama didn't ultimately suffer for it at all. How did they suffer? Being knocked down below the top two for a few weeks when the rankings are meaningless and don't determine anything when all is said and done? At the end of the regular season, LSU now faces a punishment for winning that game. Alabama is rewarded with a bye for losing it. Simple as that. Bama didn't suffer one bit. Apparently winning your conference isn't an important goal at all times in college football these days.

These rules could very easily include a rule that requires a team to win its own conference. There's a reason that LSU vs. Oklahoma (OU not winning the Big 12 that year) a number of years ago was seen as a joke of a championship game and that USC was widely considered to be chasing a threepeat against Texas the following year even though they weren't even in the BCS title game the year before.

it's like bluff shoving with 36o and running into KK. was shoving with 36o a bad decision? did it put you in a bad situation? just because you suck out doesn't mean a whole lot of **** didn't have to happen in order for you to continue playing in the tournament.

the loss put alabama in a bad situation. the winner of that game controlled their destiny and the loser had to root against 5 teams to have a shot at the NCG. just because alabama made it back to the NCG doesn't mean the first game was meaningless.


if the goal is to pit the two best teams in the country against one another, i'm not sure why anyone has to be required to win their conference to play in the NCG simply because there are scenarios where the best team doesn't win the conference. was nevada better than boise st last year? if georgia beats LSU next week, are they better than LSU?

You still have not given me an actual negative consequence that has resulted from that loss. That they were made pretty uncomfortable for a couple of weeks? Is that it? Because I think that's more than made up for by the fact that they now get rewarded with a bye week for their loss.

There's no stated goal of pitting the two best against each other in the championship game. It's a presumption you're making, and a reasonable and fair one I will admit...but the other sports are trying to set their championship games/series between the top two also, right? Many times the NFC or AFC championship game pits off the top two teams right there. Same for the ALCS or NLCS, etc. Sometimes that's just how divisions/conferences end up being stacked up. Alabama had their shot to win the SEC by winning out. They blew it. At home, no less.

Their loss to LSU should amount to being akin to losing to LSU in the NFC Championship game. Granted that it ends up not having the likely two best teams in the sport playing each other at the end, but that is how the cookie crumbles sometimes. The country should not be giving Alabama a pass (or should I say a bye?) on their failure to win the SEC. That should be a first-class ticket to the Sugar Bowl.

if georgia beats LSU next week in a close game, who plays in the LKJ NCG?

Oklahoma State vs. Oregon.

(But Georgia isn't winning next week.)

and you think the winner of that game will be the best team in the country?

In all likelihood, no.

I also don't think the Giants team that beat the Patriots was the best in the NFL, but they did what it took to win the championship.

The champion of a sport in a given year isn't always the best team. Upsets sometimes happen that derail the best team from going all the way, and don't necessarily mean that they weren't the best team after all.

this is lol

lsu beat alabama in their place and has better wins throughout the season. why should the second game count more than the first?

the ncaa doesnt recognize a d-1 football champion. alabama would be the "bcs champions", whatever the hell that is worth, but its not the same as the best team or ncaa champions, and the AP poll has a hell of a lot more legitimacy too imo.

The oddest part of that post by Gus is that he was simultaneously preaching "less BCS involvement" while also trying to say that the BCS game is the one that we need to count, period.

If LSU beats Georgia, they've wrapped up the national title from my seat. An Alabama national title would be the phoniest national title since Ohio State 2003.

the big difference is that the giants, while clearly the inferior team, beat the pats in the championship game. the giants earned the right to play in that game through their performance in the regular season.

my point is that alabama, like the NYG, has earned their chance to play for the championship with their performance in the regular season.

the giants earned their spot by beating the teams who were competing against them for the same spot. alabama did not beat oklahoma st, stanford, etc. to earn a spot over them.

So you're truly not at all bothered by Alabama being rewarded with a bye next week for losing to LSU and outright failing to win even their division within their conference?

lorne, thoughts on seattle's chances ats today?